Knowledge@Wharton Finance and Investment Research Article

View Article on Knowledge@Wharton Mobile

Jeremy Siegel on the Bear Market, Sky-high Oil Prices and Other Bad News

Published: July 09, 2008 in Knowledge@Wharton
    Download Audio Play Audio
Article Image
Print Get PDF of Article Send a Comment
Share this Article

The stock market's June swoon has carried into July, with key indicators pointing to a bear market weighed down by rising oil prices, the credit crisis and more bad news from Detroit, as the Big Three auto manufacturers reported substantial losses. Meanwhile, the G-8 gathered in Japan to discuss global warming and the economy, but didn't include the two largest emerging economies -- China and India -- in the talks. Knowledge@Wharton spoke to Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel about these developments and others.

An edited transcript of the conversation follows.

Knowledge@Wharton: The Dow Jones Industrials have fallen about 15% on the year and are still firmly in bear market territory, down by about 21% from their high in October. The S&P is near bear market status, down 20% from its record close in October - and the S&P is down about 15% for the year to date. These are "gut check" times for those of us who invest for the long term. What's it going to take to trigger a recovery on the market?

Siegel: The market has been hit by a one-two punch. The first punch was the credit crunch that started at the end of last year, because of the housing bubble that burst. The second punch, which I think is now a stronger punch are the energy prices, the gasoline prices and the oil prices above $140.  And, I often said that I thought that the economy could handle either one; but both together, that is really tough.

Actually, I think people are saying "Why is it only down 20%" because we have seen bear markets down 50%. The truth of the matter is that there are a number of good things out there that I think are keeping the decline in the moderate territory. What do we need to get it moving back up again? And, that is lower energy prices. I think that that is the key. If we get oil back down into the $100 region, gasoline stabilized and back down to even $3.50 a gallon, which I know is still high, but I think that that will be an important part of the recovery for the markets.

Knowledge@Wharton: I know that the auto industry would love to see that happen because they had an awful June, especially the "Big Three" in the US. -- Ford, GM and Chrysler. They seemed to have gotten themselves caught in the same trap that they did in the 1970s and 1980s; building the wrong vehicles for the wrong time. Can they pull out of this again?

Siegel: And they are paying the price, as they should for that. I mean no one predicted that oil would go this high, but everyone knew that it certainly wasn't going to go lower. The hybrids and alternative fuels -- they have to put all of their resources there. And, of course, the big problem is that they were weak even before this, with the pensions which is working out with the UAW. So, they've got that double whammy on them, hopefully to bring some leverage on their current situation, to resolve the health care and some of their pension fund costs which is really another big problem that they have.

Knowledge@Wharton: And, their competitors don't have to carry those kinds of costs.

Siegel: Absolutely and that's a major factor.

Knowledge@Wharton: The two government sponsored mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, fell pretty dramatically on Wall Street on Monday, July 7th, signaling a lack of confidence among investors, we're told. If the companies fall short of capital, they'd have a harder time securing mortgages. That would raise some home buyers borrowing costs and likely drive down home prices further. What does that say about the prognosis for the crisis?

Siegel: First of all, the government is not going to let Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fail. I mean, given the way the Fed and others have been extending credit, these are very essential institutions. So, my feeling is that a top priority for the government and the Fed is to make sure that conformable mortgages -- those that are under the limits and conform to that -- will still be flowing at a normal rate. Jumbo mortgages have a surcharge and they will continue to have a surcharge, compared to where they were a couple of years ago.

But, no matter what happens, [you know, the fears on Wall Street] I know that there is a back up there -- to make sure that conformable mortgages will still be okay. This is because we all realize that if you cut off that conduit, you'd really spiral the economy into a recession. And, there's far more public support to making sure that those mortgages are available than giving money to the investment banks, which the Fed did in March.

Knowledge@Wharton: And those problems on the credit front in the United States are of course being felt globally in some of the other markets. How do you see this playing out in economies outside of the US?

Siegel: You know, I was reading an interesting analysis; JP Morgan sort of said that Europe is probably about 6 months behind in its cycle of slow down to the US; and, the emerging markets, a year behind, which is interesting. No one is going to be immune from the energy crunch. It is affecting everyone. And of course, for some of the poorer countries, the food crunch is as equally important; not to the developed countries, but to the developing countries.

But, I think that everyone is going to be affected by the energy crunch. And, I really think that again, if I were to say "What is bedeviling the market right now, worldwide?" I would say that the energy question is more important now than the credit question.

Knowledge@Wharton: The G8 gathering in Japan is underway, as we speak. Do you think that they will come up with any meaningful proposals, or will their results be long on rhetoric and short on substance?

Siegel: That seems to be the case all the time. There is a lot of rhetoric. You know, they talk about exchange rates; the truth of the matter is we economists know that it's really the Central Banks. Even though they say that "We're going to give it to the Treasury." It's the Central Banks that make the important decisions on monetary policy and that really affects the exchange rates between the countries.

You know, everyone knows that George Bush is a "lame duck" president and that starting an initiative now, when we know that we are going to have a new president next January, is going to be pretty hard to do. So, there will be rhetoric... that we're all working together to solve the problems of pollution, global warming, energy crisis and food -- but not much on action.

Knowledge@Wharton: China and India are not participating in that. Is that a sin of omission?

Siegel: Absolutely, I mean when everyone talks about what are the sources of the energy crisis, we always talk about the insatiable appetite from China and India -- and now we leave them out of G8, in terms of talking about what they could have done. I mean, clearly I think you have to expand it to these other two countries, to really get a global look at all of the factors affecting the world economy.

Knowledge@Wharton: San Francisco's Federal Reserve Bank president, Janet Yellon,             said yesterday that the Fed can't just be hopeful that inflation will come down, but that it must be prepared to make hard choices as needed, according to a report in The New York Times. Is the Fed indeed prepared to make hard choices and what should those choices be?

Siegel: Well, you know, for the last year the Fed has been saying "We expect inflation to moderate as the economy slows." And the truth of the matter is we haven't seen inflation moderate and it's beginning to be [kind of] thrown back in their face with "You keep talking about this and it's not happening." I had stated in an earlier podcast that I didn't like them going down all the way to 2% from 2.25%. It was more of the signal, than the importance of a quarter of a point. But, clearly they're not going any lower.

My feeling is that if we can crack oil prices and this is the second day now, as I'm talking, that we've had some big declines that they won't need to raise this year. If oil goes back down into the low $100 region, my feeling is that they are going to stay at the 2% through the remainder of the period. The dollar has been holding up fairly well, as the other world economies soften a little bit, they don't feel that they'll have to raise it up.

If oil continues upward and we see those commodity prices continue to move upward, I think that they are going to have to join the ECB and perhaps others in saying "We've got to stand against this commodity inflation." It is a painful choice and she is right. But, if commodity prices [again] start rising, they would need to do it. If commodity prices break, if we did see the peak a couple days ago, my feeling is that they will hold on the rate for the rest of the year.

Knowledge@Wharton: We talked a little bit about rhetoric at the G8 meeting, which brings us of course to the presidential election here in the United States. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee said on July 7th that his administration would balance the US Federal budget deficit by the end of his first term and that would be 2013.

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee once made a similar pledge, but now says the goal is more likely to be 8 years. Both are proposing various tax cuts and rebates, but have been vague about how they would reduce spending. Can you give us a reality check on the candidates' fiscal policies and maybe remind us about the pros and cons of running a deficit?

Siegel: Well, first of all, let me say that the reality check is that I don't think it's going to close in 4 years or 8 years. I think that we will probably be running a deficit for decades. Now, that isn't bad as long as it stays in a certain proportion to the GDP, we don't actually have to balance the budget. I think that there are a couple of things on the table that are important.

Now, do we need another fiscal stimulus package? It has helped. The GDP is going to come out in a few weeks and I expect the second quarter to be up between 2% and 3%. If you remember, it was 1% the previous two quarters. But what happens is if oil prices don't go down, the third and fourth quarter could be much weaker, particularly the fourth quarter which we might want to think about another fiscal stimulus package then. There is one thing that...this is under Bush's watch.

You know, the truth of the matter is we know that taxes are going to go up. Tax rates are going to go up whether McCain wins or Obama wins, because we are going to have a Democratically controlled Congress and the Bush tax cuts are going to expire. So that's going to be a reality.

But, one thing that is very important and that is the most important thing we can do to close the deficit is not to start raising taxes, especially under a weak economy, but to stimulate economic growth. I mean Clinton balanced the budget not really through new taxes, but by an incredible growth surge that we had through the 1990s and that's when we balanced it.

If we can get back on the growth path, get those energy prices down and put into place policies that are going to get us on the growth path that will do more than tax policies in terms of closing the deficit. This is just something that we all have to keep in mind when we talk about deficits into the future.

Knowledge@Wharton: Well, thanks very much.

Siegel: Thanks for having me.

Back to Top

Here's what you think...

Total Comments: 6

#1    Bear Market

USA is headed for an economic and market crash. Not even President Obama will save it.
By: Roger Brown,
Sent: 11:39 PM Wed Jul.09.2008 - US

#2    Historic Perspective Needed

Neither agree nor disagree. It is almst 80 years since I took my first course in economics, at high school level, and many more courses at college level. I watched the price of Nathans hot dog go from a nickel to $2-3. I watched as FDR started printing money, without backing, and his successors continuted. Dr. Siegel never discusses.
By: John Boyars,
Sent: 06:38 AM Thu Jul.10.2008 - US

#3    Adding a comment to Prof. Siegel interview

A must "shift": Economic growth could also be enhanced with future government policies which can promote micro-investment funds for entrepreneurship development and SME's which are currently producing export goods/services needed in Asian markets as China and India.
By: Eleonora Escalante,
Sent: 04:39 PM Thu Jul.10.2008 - SV

#4    Viewing the Ecopnomic Collapse through Rose Colored Glasses

Jeremy Siegel's analysis and outlook is based on a set of filters and biases whose premises suffer from incompleteness and black box thinking at best. To expect a consumer led economy to recover because oil and energy, or food and lodging costs go down - without sustainable production and expansion, limited job creation and real wage growth -- are but a 'system dream'.

To state categorically that Clinton balanced the budget forgets that the Republican controlled congress led the way and with 'one swing of the bat' achieved a once in a lifetime productivity swing by accident. Regardless of that balanced budget and deficit-corrected blip in US history - no government EVER created free market jobs that were sustainable and not bubble related or were merely government jobs for that 'lifetime pensioned class'. Getting the price of oil down and creating some policy wonk nonsense fails to consider that the US federal government exists to support its own incompetent, pork-barrel spending and self serving participants. The evidence: the failed practices in building the US economic system for the past 70 years.

Premises by example: All asset bubbles are led by monetary and fiscal policies and paid for by future taxpayers and the losers who participate in a current bubble - like the NASDQ tech bubble and the phony wealth creation housing bubble. The phony Y2K problem was a creation, leading a tech bubble that was fueled by an unlimited access to capital for an over-participated in technology revolution. Mostly short-term and not-commercially viable productive benefits were the result of all those US public offerings and debt financings. Again, the need to prove up Schumpeter's creative destruction theories in a capital system drove all those temporal expansions and helps explain the US's inability to compete globally.

As GDP continues to be re-measured in a hedonic way at best, the US real growth on an inflation adjusted basis is less than 0, that the USD is but a 6 cent print for the Office of Currency makes the 'US cash is trash' argument viable, that the FED and Central Bank cannot inflate away the absolute values of the US debt, that the estimated unfunded off balance sheet US liabilities of 52+ Trillion will require endless restructuring. US wages and standard of living will continue to fall in real terms because US costs of production have been uncompetitive on a global basis - and job creation is mostly without benefits and truly part time. Bringing down the price of oil is but one small piece of the puzzle.

To believe that central bank monetary policy drives exchange rates without discussing context in a global market place, again makes a definitional conclusion where the definitions have to be agreed upon in order to have an honest discussion where each thesis that does not stand on its own head; especially where an acknowledgement that deficits and debt could run for decades which is ok provided they are a '% of GDP. Does that not sound like more of an "acceptable leverage hypothesis" for survival?

A capital economic system which continues to be reliant on an 'entertainment society mentality' driven by a government elite, produces limited productive policy work including infrastructure, energy, water, or food. A less educated populace that relies on growing an unskilled illegal immigrant class to do the dirty work cannot get back on a path of growth. A society whose incarceration system is a 'business', is a society where growth is not top down but bottom up.

Conclusion: There are no endless growth stories and a need for rewriting a new US story. Raising taxes is never a feel good event, but where will the revenue come from to drive the 'nationalized and socialized' approach of the US Federal agenda? It is time for social-capital system to reconsider its very tenets for survival.
By: Stewart Lee, Innovative Management Group,1983 (Principal)
Sent: 07:49 AM Sun Jul.13.2008 - US

#5    HARSH REALITY

I strongly agree with Mr. Siegel that the American economy is in the grip of receesion. But it is all because of the callous mistakes of the president. Invading Irag and Afganistan has certainly increased the fiscal deficits. Now the gas guzzling monsters which Detroit manufactures ... were bound to create a problem .
By: sahil sethi, IIPM ,new delhi
Sent: 08:05 AM Sun Jul.13.2008 - AU

#6    Peak Oil

I agree totally with Stewart Lee from Innovative Management Group. The thing the discussion has not included is Peak Oil which we from the Dialogue Group on the Sunshine Coast QLD on Sustainability are focusing on, because when it runs out we the grass roots organisations have to address the needs of the community through locally based economic activities. We are active in the planning now for possible economic collapse world wide and how the knock on effects will change our whole style of production and consumption. We are actively involved in Climate Change to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren knowing that now we must take responsibility for the custodianship of the planet.
By: Gail Skipworth, Student
Sent: 07:32 PM Wed Jul.23.2008 - AU
Comments are only open for the first 30 days after publishing.

Back to Top